Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would have been much better off taking the plea bargain since he had already admitted what he had done.

View on HN

Shouldn't it be the judge's call to decide whether or not resources are being wasted? The fact that the prosecutor raised charges in spite of the fact that the nature and severity of crime did not change seems reprehensible and basically amounts to revenge.

It reminds of the time I was reprimanded by a teacher more harshly because I chose to share the sequence of events that unfolded with my parents. My parents called the teacher about it, and the next day, things were magically worse.

Edit: fixed typo

In the American justice system the judge is part of the judicial branch and the prosecutor is part of the executive branch.

Prosecutors have a huge amount of discretion in their jobs. They can choose if they press charges and if so what charges to press.

In this case, there are allegations that the prosecution abused its power by retaliating against free speech.

The prosecutor allegedly said something along the lines of: Aaron Swartz was foolish to exercise free speech because it then went "‘from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.’ The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally"

I presume by "one-on-one" prosecution, the prosecutor meant it was one prosecutor against Aaron Swartz. But by publicizing the case, it aroused the interest of the "institution" (i.e. the higher ups), who then decided to throw the book at Swartz.

I'm hoping this is just really subtle sarcasm - there is a Constitutional right to a trial, you know...even when "everybody knows" that the defendant is guilty.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Prosecutors have power to prosecute, not the "right" to prosecute. The evolving history of individual rights is a response to the even longer history of abuses of those powers by little people that get big jobs.

Ortiz and Heymann abused their power and abused Aaron's rights. They should be in jail, not getting a paycheck from taxpayers.

Oh, you're right about natural rights vs. granted powers. And I agree the prosecution went way too far, although Ortiz [edit: not Heymann] must have been shocked at the outcome since she literally got commendations for going way too far before. https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/201...

Oh please, tell me how criminals "abuse" their right to trial.

A stalker can demand to face their accuser, just to harrass that person more. This is exactly the example given in the article: if you're trying to make trouble for someone, dragging them through a lawsuit is effective.

What, so you think stalkers should not have a right to a fair trial? They are using their right, not abusing it. They don't lose that right just because the accuser is not interested in seeing them.

I never said that. But the prosecution (and the judge) have to take into account the effect the trial might be having on the victim, and reduce the defendant's ability to cause more damage. Prosecutorial discretion is all about minimizing the damage done in the course of the defense itself.

No-matter how you slice it, demanding a fair trial for yourself is never an abuse of your rights.

>defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial.

Just surreal. Like Swartz was a sadist and MIT was a traumatized victim of violence, not like a young prodigy whose life were being crushed for the modern "Prometheus" action and a bunch of PC-sensitive executive bureaucrats augmented by a lawyer department.

nope, it doesn't at all - it makes the prosecutor seem like a petulant child - they didn't get what they wanted (Swartz to quietly, meekly give in), so the pulled out the big guns and bullied him until he committed suicide.

I dunno. When I'm going 65 in a 45 and I know I'm dead wrong, when the cop only gives me a ticket for my broken tail light I don't give them a hard time. I would fully expect that if I gave the officer the finger he'd give me both tickets. The prosecutor probably felt he was doing the kid a favor and got snubbed. I'm not saying it's right, just saying there's more than one side to the story.

> Prosecutors eventually offered Swartz a deal to avoid trial in which he’d have to plead guilty to all 13 charges and spend six months behind bars. Two days later, on Jan. 11, 2013, Swartz hung himself.

Somehow I missed it before that they had come all the way down to 6 months in prison, and just 2 days before he killed himself. I thought he died still thinking he was facing 35 years in prison... not 6 months.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com